wmpa_21jun12_projectchampiompostimplementationreview-01

©Saima Afzal Solutions

West Midlands Police

Authority

Post Implementation

Review of

Project Champion

Recommendations

Review Team: Saima Afzal MBE, Mike Hughes, Paul Fitzgerald

June 2012

2

3

CONTENTS

Page No

Background

5

Report Summary

5

Review and Terms of Reference

6

Methodology

7

Scrutiny Areas

7

Recommendations from TVP and BCC reviews

8

Review Findings and Recommendations

8

Leadership

8

Governance

10

Project and Programme Management

12

Performance And Service Delivery management

12

Training

13

Equality Impact Assessments

15

Human Rights Considerations

17

Communication Consultation & Community Engagement

17

Future Governance Landscape

18

Acknowledgements

20

Appendix A

21

Appendix B

22

Disclaimer

23

4

5

1. Background

1.1

West Midlands Police Authority (WMPA) has commissioned Saima Afzal Solutions (SAS) to

conduct a light touch external review to consider the steps taken to learn from the

experiences resulting from Project Champion: an abortive project to install CCTV and

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in two areas of Birmingham. The

areas where the cameras were to be located are associated with Counter Terrorism (CT)

investigations past and present, and have high Muslim populations. As such issues relating

to equality, human rights, trust and confidence have been given considerable attention

throughout the review process.

WMPA and West Midlands Police (WMP) acknowledged at the Authority meeting 25 October

2010 that „The communities who lived in the Project Champion scheme area felt stigmatized

and the very existence of the infrastructure that had grown up in the area to support the

scheme had become, and would remain, an emblem of that stigmatization.’

The purpose of the review is not to explore any perceived or actual failings that may have resulted

from the abortive project to install CCTV and ANPR cameras.

The primary purpose of the review is to provide external oversight and verification of the adequacy

and extent to which the key recommendations resulting from the Thames Valley Police (TVP) and

Birmingham City Council (BCC) reviews have been implemented and also to provide commentary in

relation to the extent to which WMPA have given adequate diligence and due regard, specifically in

relation to rebuilding public trust and confidence.

2. Report Summary

2.1

The TVP and BCC reviews of Project Champion identified a series of recommendations and learning

points. WMPA has taken a number of steps to address

- public confidence

- project management and

- equality, diversity and human rights related issues

The SAS review Team has wherever possible scrutinised the key steps taken by WMPA and provided

thorough commentary and recommendations where relevant to further assist WMPA.

In response to the recommendations WMPA have

Amended the terms of reference of committees to include human rights

6

Strengthened the member competency and review process

Committed to audit equalities and human rights work

Changed their approach to delegations

Agreed to provide a public commentary in meeting agendas on decisions that are taken in

private

Improved liaison with local authorities

Turned Corporate Planning and Policy Working Group into a public meeting with responsibility

for oversight of major projects

Sought external support in the development of their approach to ensure consideration of

equalities and human rights

Written to the Policing Minister to express concerns at what WMPA observe to be the

uncertainties in the national and local governance of counter terrorism policing

The BCC review did not make recommendations directly to either WMP or WMPA. The key action for

WMPA arising from the BCC report was the urgent need to improve liaison with the local authorities in

the WMPA policing area. The review team have paid specific cognisance to the latter

recommendation arising out of the BCC review and have made recommendations to enhance the

positive progress that WMPA have made.

WMPA‟s commissioning of an external review is evidence of a willingness and openness to

demonstrate to the public the importance of rebuilding public trust and confidence. In addition the

external review provides an external verification of the implementation of the recommendations

resulting from the TVP and BCC reviews.

The SAS review team were overall impressed by WMPA‟s approach and manner in which they acted

upon the TVP and BCC recommendations. No concerns of a significant nature have been identified

and any recommendations included by the SAS review team are minor in nature and if implemented

will assist to enhance the significant and positive steps that WMPA have already embarked upon.

3. Review and Terms of Reference

3.1 The specific terms of reference for the review as provided by WMPA are as stated below:

To consider the learning points arising from West Midlands Police Authority‟s engagement in

Project Champion, notably in the Thames Valley Police and Birmingham City Council reviews

To consider and report on the extent to which the actions taken in response to Project

Champion are appropriate and successful

To make any further recommendations to WMPA related to issues arising from Project

Champion

7

To consider and make recommendations relating to how the lessons learned and actions

taken in relation to Project Champion may be applied to the transition to PCCs and their

ongoing support

4. Methodology

4.1

Provision of documentary evidence to the review team

Observation of the Protective Services Committee

Observations of WMPA meetings

Interviews with WMPA members and staff

Interview with BCC elected member and Scrutiny Officer

List of persons spoken with (not in order):

Bishop Derek Webley - Chair of WMPA Professor Ron Amman - Chair of Protective Services Committee Mr Roger Hughes - EDHR Lead Member Cllr Judy Foster - Vice-Chair of WMPA / EDHR Lead Member Ms Jackie Courtney - Chief Executive WMPA Mr Jonathan Jardine - WMPA Policy Manager Ms Claire Thomas - WMPA Policy Officer Ms Andrea Gabbitas - WMPA Policy Manager Ms Alethea Fuller - WMPA Policy Manager Cllr James Hutchings – Birmingham City Council Ms Benita Wishart - BCC Scrutiny Manager

5. Scrutiny Areas

5.1

All interviewed provided answers to questions relating to the areas scrutinised by the SAS review

team as stated below:

Governance

Leadership

Project and Programme Management

Performance and Service Delivery Management

Partnership working; for effective service delivery and EDHR compliance

Communication, Engagement, Involvement of key stakeholders, including the public

Community Equality Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) Impact as a result of implementing

the Project Champion TVP and BCC recommendations

Training, capability, knowledge provided to WMPA Members / Officers and West Midlands

Police (WMP) staff and officers

Sustainability; future proofing for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC‟s)

8

Local versus national project & performance management, particularly in relation to effective

service delivery and EDHR compliance

6. Recommendations from TVP and BCC reviews

6.1

For reader clarity and ease the recommendations from the TVP and BCC reviews are included at

Appendices A and B.

7. Review findings And Recommendations

7.1

N.B. Commentary is provided in plain text, recommendations are in bold text.

The areas scrutinised have been categorised into key thematic areas, commentary has been provided

in relation to each theme. Please note that there is a significant overlap between many of the thematic

areas, particularly in relation to EDHR and communications related activity, subsequently overlap in

relation to the commentary provided may occur.

8.1 Leadership

8.1.1

It was clear throughout the SAS review team pre-reading, and during the field visit, that the Authority

is led decisively and effectively by Bishop Derek Webley.

Bishop Webley had been in post as Chair for little over a year when concerns about Project

Champion thrust both the Authority and Chair very firmly into the public spotlight. However, from

documentation seen, and particularly from interviews with other Authority members, it is clear that

Bishop Webley was exercising clear leadership prior to Project Champion becoming a public issue,

not withstanding their lack of intervention into Project Champion itself. An example of this earlier

leadership is the clear expectations Bishop Webley set of both himself and other authority members

to move public meetings out of police premises and into more accessible locations.

Whilst the Chair sets the tone, there was also evidence of similar activity by other authority members.

For instance, the review team were shown a working document authored by Professor Ron Amman,

dated 17 September 2009, entitled 'Review of Preventing Violent Extremism - Submission by West

Midlands Police Authority'. This included the following paragraph, reflective of attempts at public

engagement at that time around the Prevent strand of Counter Terrorism activity

"Police authorities can also have direct oversight of local partnership working. For example, at 1030

on 8 October 2009 the WMPA Community and Security Committee will be meeting in public at the

9

Drum Theatre in Aston, Birmingham. Following the meeting there will be a question and answer

session at which members of the public can quiz the committee members and WMP Officers. On the

agenda are a number of items, including a report on NI35 in the WMP area (National Indicator on

Building resilience to violent extremism, now deleted); in essence the committee will be seeking an

assessment of the effectiveness of the Force’s engagement with partners, and the progress in

achieving the objectives set out in the Prevent Strategy. As a demonstration of the role police

authorities can play in relation to preventing violent extremism, we would warmly invite members of

the Communities and Local Government committee to attend this meeting and observe."

The review team were supplied with documentation that included an exchange of letters in 2010

between the Chair, Dr. Webley, and the Minister for Policing, Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP. This

correspondence suggested that at the inception of Project Champion, there was uncertainty by the

Authority regarding its right or license to question what they perceived as a national counterterrorism

project. Despite the leadership that the Authority had hitherto shown in other areas, this inevitably led

to a lack of clarity in this arena of very specialised operations, particularly when ring-fenced funding

was being provided by the Home Office on the advice of ACPO TAM (Association of Chief Police

Officers Committee on Terrorism and Allied Matters). The letter from the Minister was helpful in

establishing that an individual Police Authority has the right, and indeed the duty, to exercise scrutiny

when national initiatives of this sort are carried out in their force area. This would also extend to acting

collectively with other Authorities when this applies on a regional basis or national basis.

Nationally there are a number of Counter Terrorism Units and Counter Terrorism Intelligence Units

situated across England and Wales. The Police Authorities for the forces in which these units are

situated convene as the Joint Counter Terrorism Oversight Group. The intention of this Oversight

Group was publicly quoted in 2009 as being 'oversight and monitoring'. It was apparent to the Review

Team that, certainly post-Champion, the role of WMPA and other Police Authorities in this group has

been strengthened, enabling it to better carry out this stated intention.

When the nature and extent of Project Champion became public, the response from West Midlands

Police and WMPA was to decommission and remove all camera equipment in the area, whether

CCTV or Automatic Number Plate Recognition. In discussions around her report, Thames Valley

Chief Constable Sara Thornton questioned whether permanent covert CCTV and ANPR cameras

would ever be feasible, suggesting that the original operational assumptions behind this part of the

project were flawed. Given the level of public concern, there was a natural desire for open

engagement with the public about what had gone wrong. There is evidence of this in various progress

reports, such as the action plan for Neighbourhood Inspectors to report back on discussions in this

area. The WMPA action plan addresses this at item 11, and the item is shown with a progress note

that "The Authority and Protective Services Committee have agreed work plans that continue to bring

additional information related to counterterrorism into the public domain, therefore informing public

debate in relation to these matters". This was discussed with members and officers during the site

visit. West Midlands are probably at the forefront of public debate in this arena.

10

A particularly strong example is the way in which members of the public with an interest in the

implementation of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are now being invited to become part of a

West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit‟s external reference group.

To progress this, the Review Team agreed with some WMPA members' comments that the way was

still open for further realistic public debate about the exact nature of the threat and risk, and what the

public in both the specific neighbourhoods and the West Midlands as a whole would want as a

proportionate response.

Sensitivities relating to counter-terrorism policing remain significant in the West Midlands and

elsewhere, and facilitating public debate will remain a key issue for the Authority in its remaining

months until the official arrival of the PCC.

8.2 Governance

8.2.1.

One of the major failings highlighted in the TVP report was a lack of inquisitiveness on the part of

WMPA into a very specialised and sensitive area of operations. This must be taken in context with

other counterterrorism related governance by WMPA, such as the work on radicalisation in 2009

described above. The history of the project shows that there was some confusion about whether it

should have been brought to a Strategic Board or remained, in retrospect inappropriately, at a lower

level Project Board.

It was clear however, that there was a gap in this important, if narrow and specialised, field.

The Review Team were encouraged by progress in this area. They met with the lead member for

Protective Services, Prof Ron Amman, and attended (as members of the public) a meeting of the

Protective Services Committee.

To deal first with the role of the lead member, it was apparent from the interview, and also from

interviews with other WMPA members, that Prof Amman has considerable professional expertise. He

is highly regarded for this, and is trusted by other WMPA members, and by relevant senior police

officers. Prof Amman holds regular meetings with Marcus Beale, the Assistant Chief Constable who

holds the protective services portfolio. Mr Jonathan Jardine now also attends this meeting. Mr Jardine

is the policy manager within WMPA, with suitable experience and security clearance. This meeting is

clearly built around, and relies on effective and highly regarded individuals. The inclusion of a WMPA

Policy Manager as well as Lead Member is a considerable strength.

The regular meetings between lead members, policy support and ACC‟s should continue, with

thought given to how such arrangements could continue once the PCC is in office.

11

8.2.2.

The review team were mindful of the particular circumstances that enabled Project Champion to

progress as far as it did without triggering action at a sufficiently senior level. They questioned the

Lead Member and several other WMPA officers and members to ascertain what reassurance might

exist that similar circumstances would not prevail in the future. They were given examples that tended

to suggest sufficient governance was now in place. One of these examples, which is noteworthy as a

project of similar national standing, concerns Project „Safe And Sound‟ (the Shot-Spotter Gunshot

Location System). Another, which was discussed at the Protective Services Committee, relates to

Operation Plato (tactics to counter a Mumbai style terrorist attack).

The Review Team found that there is no regular senior tripartite meeting between WMPA, West

Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council and see potential advantage for such an arrangement

once a PCC is elected.

There is a useful mechanism already in place, in hat a WMPA policy officer (Jonathan Jardine) does

attend a regular meeting of the BCC Scrutiny Board and can report back and act as a link with the

WMP / WMPA Protective Services Committee. Several persons interviewed described this as an

effective and mature arrangement. Some doubt was expressed as to whether there were similarly

mature high-level arrangements with other local authorities in the West Midlands Police area.

Local Authorities are key partners in protective services policing, and robust ongoing arrangements

for dialogue and partnership working remain a key priority.

8.2.3.

The review team were able to attend the public part of one of the regular protective services

committees. It was clear and notable that WMPA members, not just the lead member, were able to

question senior police officers with knowledge and credibility. Specific examples included

the grasp of detail on the number of Police Support Unit Serials being placed on standby for

mutual aid to other forces.

a detailed and subtle understanding of the performance data for police stop search activity in

specific locations, particularly questions about the relationship of numbers searched for

suspected drugs offences compared with numbers of offences brought to justice.

From these examples and other commentary, the Review Team feel that there is now sufficient

governance in place, and a sufficient will to question from WMPA, to ensure that the Authority

will be sighted on, and have the opportunity to take action about, any future proposals for

similarly specialist projects.

There is further comment on governance of Projects and Programmes in the following paragraphs.

12

8.3 Project and Programme Management

8.3.1

The Thames Valley report makes five recommendations regarding Project and Programme

Management. Two of these deal with

(i) A review of structures to oversee and manage projects to ensure that staff involved in project

management have suitable skills and support, particularly in the areas of equalities and human rights.

(iii) A review of WMPA‟s role to provide governance to force projects. Also ensuring that authority

members have the right level of training and guidance to perform this role, especially in the areas of

equalities and human rights.

These areas were pursued in interviews on site. WMPA officers and members are confident that they

have the right level of engagement with the force. They stated that it was routine for Authority

members to sit on project and programme boards. The force carries out its own project management

training using a variety of methods, appropriately including LEAN, 6Sigma, PRINCE2 and

combinations thereof. Given the comprehensive nature of these arrangements, it is assumed that

there is in place a system of arrangements which determine the level of governance and oversight

required, based on such criteria as finance, change impact, and equalities impact. In addition, rightful

emphasis has been placed on the crucial role and appropriate seniority of projects' and programmes'

Senior Responsible Owners.

The number of specialist Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) advisers to be in place by April 2012 is

impressive by any measure and is a mark of real commitment to this important area.

8.4. Performance and Service Delivery Management

8.4.1

The debate about the removal of the cameras leads into a concern that was felt by the review team

prior to the visit. The concern was that there might now be a perception that the affected areas had

become „difficult‟ for the type of everyday CCTV coverage common in most British towns and cities,

and there might be a risk of a resultant performance gap. On the contrary, during the visit the review

team heard that performance in measurable crime types had not suffered as a result of the actions

taken post-Champion. In fact, it appeared that the reverse was true, that crime rates and crime

detection rates for crime types such as robbery and violence were improving in the localities.

This could be due to a number of factors: more effective tactics, greater emphasis on traditional

policing, or even possibly (and paradoxically) that the positive response by the Police, WMPA and

Birmingham City Council to Champion had resulted in increased support by the public for police /

partnership actions and investigations.

13

There still exists a danger that despite current strong performance, ground might be lost in the future,

due to lack of infrastructure. Despite having been given reassurances regarding signal crime types,

the review team are also concerned about the potential for diminished public safety in less obvious

areas such as domestic abuse and safeguarding issues.

A number of those interviewed also spoke of apprehension, either now or historically, about roads

policing issues such as higher than average numbers of untaxed or uninsured vehicles.

It was pointed out to the Review Team that some of the localities affected by Operation Champion

had been pioneers in the use of traditional, council controlled CCTV in the early years of its

development in the UK. This was due to worries of local residents at the time regarding street

offences. It was portrayed to the team that the general feeling of public safety in the areas increased

as result.

WMP and WMPA already have performance monitoring structures in place, which draw from a wide

variety of sources, including leading indicators. The review team felt it important that the Authority‟s

performance monitoring frameworks and indicators should be sufficiently nuanced to allow early

warning of impending problems and concerns.

8.5 Training

8.5.1

WMPA documentary evidence provided the review team with considerable confidence in relation to

the extent and quality of training provided to members of the Authority. Evidence of training provided

included a number of areas; ‘The Equality Act 2010: The Challenges ahead’, ‘Human Rights and

Policing’ and ‘Trust, Policing and Muslim Communities’.

As well as providing training, WMPA have also commissioned member development opportunities

that enable members to access feedback and further development directly with the facilitators

delivering any given training package. WMPA have additionally asked facilitators to provide written

feedback and evaluation of the training provided, ‘Equality and Diversity training West Midland Police

Authority’ was one such report which was commissioned by WMPA and completed in April 2010.

The review team picked up a slight concern contained within the Harris Beider report which

highlighted that ‘Not all members attended the sessions and this was unfortunate and could have

been viewed as not prioritising equalities as being important’. From this and other comments made in

interviews, it would appear that despite the substantial amounts of training that have been provided by

WMPA, some members have not been able to attend. The reasons for non-attendance are not

apparent, and consideration may need to be given to member commitment to other activities they are

involved in. It is understood that not all members will always be available for all training. Due to the

current circumstances and taking into consideration the limited time left available for the Authority to

prepare for transition to PCC governance, the review team feel that it would be inappropriate to

14

recommend that all members who have not undertaken EDHR training should now be fully trained on

all areas relating to EDHR and other issues that impact on under-represented groups. However, this

opinion of the review team should not detract from WMPA members continuing to fulfil their duties as

Independent or Elected members in all areas relating to Police Authority governance requirements.

An interim solution would be to ensure members are adequately trained or briefed in relation to their

particular areas of activity and interest, or lead portfolio areas, rather than WMPA attempting to

commission full training for all members.

Recommendation 1

WMPA should ensure that members receive appropriate levels training, briefings and

discussion workshops based on their lead portfolio, or area of activity, in order for them to

adequately perform the duties allocated to them until transition to PCC.

8.5.2

The review team did not receive sufficient written documentary evidence to fully assess the adequacy

of WMPA Officer capacity building and training. Therefore training, succession planning and capability

needs were discussed in interviews. During the interview stage it was demonstrated that WMPA

Officers receive training on a variety of issues. WMPA takes a lead role and is working via the

Association of Police Authorities (APA) with the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) to

develop a training programme for Police Authority staff that would help prepare them to work under a

PCC structure and within the context of a more „political‟ environment. However the training

commissioned from the NPIA is primarily designed for Chief Executives and Deputy Chief Executives.

The review team feel that national training should be available for all staff working under the current

Authority structures to ensure succession planning occurs. There is a risk that staff including

Deputies and Chief Executives of Police Authorities may exit the organisation unless they are

adequately equipped, and feel capable and competent to work under future PCC structures.

In the opinion of the review team, detailed succession planning is required to mitigate the corporate

loss of knowledge that will inevitably result as the Authority moves to a structure of police governance

with only a single elected figurehead. Member skills and knowledge cannot be realistically transferred

or acquired by one single person in all areas. The review team feel it is necessary to transfer

knowledge to the WMPA staff working to the PCC, who must be equipped in advance with the

necessary information. Assuming retention of all or most WMPA staff into Office of the Police and

Crime Commissioner (OPCC) existing staff need to acquire or capture the skills that currently

seventeen members of WMPA provide. This is of course in addition to their current high commitment

and significant workload. To support this, work should be undertaken to map out existing Member

skills and knowledge, and ensure that all such areas can be picked up by WMPA officers and staff.

In wider debate rather than directly by WMPA members or staff, some concerns were expressed that

the political dimensions that the elected members of WMPA currently provide will no longer be

15

available „in-house‟ and WMPA staff will therefore need to be fully equipped with the ability to

understand the political landscape of their work.

This debate could even be interpreted to include some lack of confidence in relation to PCC

governance. The two key areas highlighted related specifically to (i) the level of „Policing‟ related

knowledge a PCC may hold and (ii) the degree to which a PCC can be directly involved in partnership

meetings with Local Authorities. These comments were tempered by a very positive regard for the

current level of involvement by WMPA members and Officers involved with BCC, who are seen to

share knowledge and communicate issues of concern, particularly at scrutiny officer level. Policy

Manager Jonathan Jardine‟s involvement was flagged up as exemplary; however the concern

remained that under a future PCC regime this involvement may not continue to the same degree.

The over-riding issue being expressed is that of; whether WMPA can ensure that its successor body

the OPCC will possess sufficient knowledge and capability as a standalone organisation. If not, there

is is a danger that the PCC will instead have to rely too heavily on the Police directly, which may tend

to weaken the independence of the PCC.

8.6 Equality Impact Assessments (EQIA’s)

8.6.1

Throughout the advance documents supplied, all papers explicitly stated that EQIA‟s had been

completed where relevant. The review team noted this as good practice. They were not able to

examine individual EQIA‟s to assess the quality; therefore the issue was explored during the interview

stage. Members assured the team that EQIA‟s are routinely conducted.

It was not clear if all EQIA's are available for dip sampling by members of the Authority, or

alternatively by an external reference group such as Independent Advisory Group (IAG) members. It

is not sufficient to state that an EQIA has been conducted if no (or limited) check and balance via dip

sampling exists for the Authority to assure itself of the quality of an EQIA. It would therefore be good

practice to ensure that dip sampling takes place in future.

It would be advisable that such provisions do not rely on member involvement alone in order to future

proof them for transference into a PCC structure.

As part of governance for the PCC framework for commissioning of services, WMPA might also

consider satisfying themselves that service providers have themselves carried out meaningful

Community / Equality Impact Assessments.

The review team were told that WMPA had been informed that there was an EQIA in place for

Operation Champion, but it was not shared with the Authority either at the time or made available

after the event.

16

8.6.2

Another area of slight concern is the ability to demonstrate adequate levels of due regard as required

within the Single Equality Act 2010. From some documents provided, there did not appear to be a

fully coherent and consistent approach to the statutory Equality requirements as stated in the Act.

Some documents referred to previous legislation (specifically the Race Relations and Disability

Discrimination Acts).

As a general observation, any reference to the equality implications on formal WMPA papers should

be applied to all protected characteristics as stated under the Single Equality Act 2010; this will

enable a corporate and consistent approach.

It was encouraging to see EIA‟s routinely referred to in documentation. When this was pursued further

in meetings with Authority members, the verbal feedback revealed a slight concern that these

“equalities paragraphs” might on occasions be an add-on rather than an intrinsic part of the working

document.

Recognising and capitalising on excellent progress made to date around EQIA‟s; a potential tactic

might be to change the terminology to „Community Impact Assessment‟, which would include a

comment on equality, diversity and human rights where appropriate, or conversely the rationale as to

why there is no equality impact.

The Review Team felt that

(a) the community impact of policies, strategies or operations is likely to be wider than „just‟ Equality.

As examples, it might include the effect on a community of high profile policing, or even road closures

for major events.

(b) this would help to mainstream and embed equality impact analysis as part of everyday business

rather than as an „add on‟.

Looking forward to Police Authority transition, such a move would add legitimacy to the Police And

Crime Commissioner, bearing in mind that the future governance landscape for Commissioners will

be based on this public accountability, of which this would be a good exemplar.

One of the major responses to the Sara Thornton report has been to substantially increase the

capacity of West Midlands Police to undertake equality impact assessments. Impressively, the force

has a plan to imminently have 400 trained assessors in place.

The progress made and commitment shown by West Midlands Police in training this number of

assessors is remarkable and is to be applauded. However, it would appear that at least some

Authority members still require some reassurance on progress and effectiveness in this area. A

standard way to gauge progress in this area could be via Kirkpatrick‟s Four Level Evaluation, which

examines:

17

o Reaction to training

o Learning achieved

o Changes in behaviour

o Resultant measurable changes to organisational performance.

Recommendation 2

WMPA papers refer to a number of historic Equality Acts that now should be incorporated into

the Single Equality Act 2010. Any reference to the equality implications on formal WMPA

papers should now be applied to all protected characteristics as stated under the Single

Equality Act 2010; this enables a corporate and consistent approach.

8.7 Human Rights Considerations

8.7.1

WMPA submitted significant documentary evidence relating both to correspondence and the conduct

of business at formal meetings. The evidence suggests there is robust management and questioning

of all matters relating to EDHR during such meetings. The documentary evidence provided by WMP

however does not on all occasions state explicitly the Human Rights implications within each paper

presented to the Authority.

A vast majority of the papers purely focus on the Equality requirements. Human Rights requirements

or implication will not be captured within an EQIA alone. However, moving to a Community Impact

Assessment model as advised under recommendations 9 would enable the Human Rights

considerations to be more explicitly explored.

Recommendation 3

Human Rights implications should be stated explicitly on committee papers and if risk

assessments have been completed the level of risk should be indicated.

8.8 Communication Consultation & Community Engagement

8.8.1

WMPA communication strategy for public engagement and consultation is exceptional and ambitious.

The separate Police Authority Communications Strategy provides for an important check and balance,

and recognises the possible limitation of reliance on WMP alone for information relating to the public.

The commentary provided within the Leadership section of this report demonstrates a very strong

commitment of WMPA‟s desire to be open, honest and accountable. The review team are extremely

impressed that the Authority does not assume any complacency in relation to its engagement and

consultation processes with the public.

18

WMPA has innovatively taken a consultation approach that seeks to capture the views of the silent

majority and have engaged in „parallel dialogues‟ with the community figureheads and leaders whilst

at the same time WMPA have reached „beyond the obvious voices‟ to access the „seldom heard

voices‟. A number of very meaningful reports are cited below that provide evidence and a

demonstration of the commitment of WMPA to reach out „beyond the obvious‟. The Ipsos Mori

research on „Seldom Heard Communities’ and The Focus Enterprises report, ‘Tell us your story’

relating to visually impaired groups are some examples amongst many of the significant and

demonstrable commitment WMPA has given to reaching out to as many „seldom heard voices‟ as is

realistically viable.

It is the view of the review team that although separate consultation ensures that the WMPA guards

against a reliance upon the West Midlands Police (WMP) in relation to public engagement, there is

still a slight danger that separate engagement occurs with the same groups, i.e. the same community

groups may be engaged with by WMPA on one occasion and then on a separate occasion engaged

with by WMP. This will result in ineffective engagement, consultation fatigue from the respondents‟

point of view and ineffective use of resources. It would therefore be advisable practice to have liaison

between those in WMP and those in WMPA responsible for such engagement, in order to ensure no

duplication and unnecessary overlap occurs. Conversely, on some occasions it will be necessary for

both WMPA and WMP to engage separately with the same groups.

8.8.2

The review team commend as good practice the degree to which WMPA has pushed nearly all of its

business into the public domain, with only very limited information being dealt with as Part Two items.

This could be further enhanced by recognising the need to publish information about outputs / outcomes arising from public engagement.

This would not detract from the noted good practice that WMPA has already adopted and should only

serve to enhance the progress to date and create a positive stance of providing the public with an

assurance mechanism that displays how their views are being heard.

8.9 Future Governance Landscape

8.9.1

Any considerations or observations regarding future governance for policing can only be presented

with the caveat that recommendations relating to the PCC or OPCC are dependant on those who hold

the latter office.

Those aspects of the review that refer to the PCC or the OPCC are intended therefore to explore

possible good practice, and aim to guard against any potential gaps that may result in governance as

a result of transition to PCC‟s.

19

WMPA has in place a very robust Transition Programme that the Chief Executive Jackie Courtney

has developed both locally and nationally via the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives

(APACE). There are no significant concerns that require any additional actions relating to WMPA.

Issues relating to capacity, training and staff being able to function under a PCC have been captured

in the Training and Capability sections of the report.

The review team are confident that robust lines of communication exist with BCC. However there is

less certainty about their being sufficiently high levels of communications across all the seven local

authority areas in the West Midlands policing area.

Project Champion has highlighted the dangers of nationally agreed activity and the local impact it

may have. During the field visit and interview phase, the review team were acutely aware of the

creation of the National Crime Agency (NCA), and that the relationships between NCA and PCC have

not yet been defined. However it is clear that the NCA have no specific requirement to report

operational matters to any future PCC, only a requirement to report to the relevant Chief Constable.

This causes some concern where; as Project Champion highlighted, that national decisions may have

a significant and negative impact on local communities. This is currently a matter of debate and an

issue for WMPA to further consider.

An area for potential development could be the establishment of communication protocols with the

Chief Constable, the NCA and WMPA that can be transferred into the PCC structure. Such a protocol

could also potentially be extended to capture and monitor proactive strategic and tactical activity in

relation to regional and national criminality.

8.9.2

Post-Transition the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) will be responsible for scrutiny of the PCC. This will

be particularly pertinent regarding high impact issues. It is hoped that some of the current strong

practices and principles of communications, and briefings that are currently being provided by WMPA

members and staff can be transferred across to the new framework, whereby a PCP primarily made

up of elected members is fully sighted and briefed on all issues relating to communities. Project

Champion is a singular example of how failing to brief and / or communicate with key individuals can

lead to mistrust and loss of confidence.

Wherever viable and reasonable WMPA should make local links with the various authorities and

strengthen the communication links across all seven Local Authority areas.

In many ways it may be easier to make those links in the future as a result of the presence of the

PCP, as the PCP is very likely to want information about local policing from the OPCC. There is

however a potential risk that complex and / or hidden issues will lose out to a localised populist

agenda, with an added risk of loss of scrutiny and governance from a PCC in relation to regional,

cross border or more complex policing issues in favour of more local issues issues. However the

review team are genuinely of the opinion that this is unlikely to occur in the West Midlands, not least

20

because of the lessons learnt from Project Champion, its aftermath, and the subsequent issues raised

in both the TVP and the BCC review.

Additionally, the future PCC will benefit from the activity that has been conducted so far with ACPO

TAM, and also notably the activity of lead members and the protective services committee. This

activity can be mapped and logged for the easy access of the future PCC, thus ensuring that as one

governance regime ends, the subsequent structure is able to effectively and efficiently pick up those

issues that can potentially create a significantly high and adverse impact, particularly on communities

that are already marginalised or perceived to be disenfranchised.

These observations are not designed to impact upon the operational independence of WMP or the

NCA; rather it is an attempt at recognising that regional and national activity sitting under the remit of

the NCA is only successfully managed with a commitment to neighbourhood policing which in turn

clearly sits under the remit of a PCC. Therefore it seems essential for the NCA and the OPCC to have

agreed communication protocols, attempts should be made to agree ‘best dialogue practice’ even if

that is on a localised basis as a starting point.

Effective communication and engagement with the NCA will ensure joined up policing from the local,

to the regional, to the national and vice versa. Clear lines of accountability and demarcation must be

drawn between the various structures under the future landscape. This should help define as well as

is reasonably viable where ultimate responsibility lies for any given activity when it is nationally

instructed.

_____________________________

Acknowledgements and Review Team comment

West Midlands Police Authority could have easily chosen to attempt to lay responsibility for errors in

the governance of Operation Champion at the door of West Midlands Police. Equally, they could have

attempted to do so with ACPO TAM or the Home Office. Instead they chose to take responsibility for

some of the project management and governance gaps that were identified by Project Champion.

It is clear, even from fact that WMPA have commissioned this review, that they are keen to ensure

that the recommendations made by Chief Constable Thornton are implemented, and that lessons

learned are embedded.

The review team have been particularly impressed by the openness shown by West Midlands Police

Authority members with whom they have come into contact during the course of this review. This

extends equally to the WMPA policy officers, to other WMPA staff, and to BCC staff and Elected

members who have been involved.

21

Appendix A - Project Champion Recommendations made by Chief Constable Thames

Valley Police

1. Decisions about service delivery and policy should take account of the EHRC‟s Equality

Impact Assessment Guidance and policy writers and decision makers should clearly set out

how those considerations along with the principles of the Human Rights Act have been

applied. Those decisions should support the Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Strategy

for the Police Service.

2. All force projects must consider any relevant local and national guidance at the earliest

possible stage. Consideration should be given to a formal procedure to examine and „sign off‟

compliance within any project methodology which is being used, whether or not it is

PRINCE2.

3. West Midlands Police should review the structures it has in places to oversee and manage

projects. They should ensure those involved in managing force projects are suitably skilled

and supported to carry out the role expected of them. This is of particular importance in the

areas of equalities and human rights.

4. West Midlands Police Authority should review the important role it plays in providing

governance for force projects. Consideration should be given to providing Police Authority

members with the right level of support, training and guidance to ensure they can perform

their role as effectively as possible. Specific guidance should be considered which covers

members‟ duties and obligations. This is of particular importance in the areas of equalities

and human rights.

5. West Midlands Police should ensure that the key role the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO)

plays in ensuring projects deliver what they set out to achieve is understood by senior

officers. The force should ensure that Senior Responsible Owners are suitably experienced,

qualified and supported.

6. West Midlands Police should ensure that genuine engagement with stakeholders is a key

consideration within every project, and that it is seen as central to the successful

management of projects rather than something which is added on as an afterthought.

7. Use the opportunity presented by the development of the refreshed Critical Incident Policy to

ensure that all officers and staff recognise potential Critical Incidents and that they flag those

incidents up so they are considered at an early stage and proportionate action taken.

8. West Midlands Police and Police Authority need to ensure that well intentioned strategies on

public consultation are followed.

9. Consultation needs to be seen as a key aspect of every project rather than as an adjunct. It

should be included within any formal project methodology, such as PRINCE2, that is being

used.

22

Appendix B - Project Champion Recommendations made by Birmingham City Council

1. That all partners of the Safer Birmingham Partnership agree to the principles of

• A lead organisation being responsible for consultation on each project

• Consulting on community safety projects and strategies with Councillors and communities;

and

• Consultation being based on as accurate and complete information as is available; all

partners should confirm that relevant community engagement strategies reflect these

principles.

2. That the City Council‟s Police Authority representatives inform, discuss and feedback to the

Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety on all relevant Police Authority

business.

3. That the City Council ensure that there is a Lead Officer representing the City Council‟s

interests on community safety issues.

4. That the Deputy Leader revisits reporting responsibilities to ensure that there are clear lines of

accountability within the City Council in relation to community safety and counter terrorism

matters.

5. That the Cabinet Member for Transportation & Regeneration establish a mechanism to

ensure the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety is alerted to

surveillance installations in the future (other than those for solely traffic monitoring purposes).

6. That the Safer Birmingham Partnership review and strengthen reporting mechanisms to the

Cabinet Member and ensure appropriate accountability for all decision-making.

7. That the Safer Birmingham Partnership revise and embed the Closed Circuit Television

(CCTV) strategy to be relevant to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) (other than

those used solely for traffic monitoring purposes) plus other emerging technologies such as

facial recognition and voice recording and perhaps aerial reconnaissance.

8. That the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety writes to the Home

Secretary to request Government to

• Recommend that intensive surveillance schemes in residential area are not supported

elsewhere;

• Establish guidelines to assist achieving the correct balance between human rights and

freedom from surveillance; and

• Ask that the constitutional position of the Association of Chief Police Officers be

considered.

9. That the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety reports progress towards

achievement of these recommendations to the Local Services and Community Safety

Overview and Scrutiny Committee in June 2011. Subsequent progress reports will be

scheduled by the Committee thereafter, until all recommendations are

implemented.

23

DISCLAIMER

This report is compiled based on

- information furnished by WMPA

- the responses made by officers and staff either in person or in written response to questions

- face-to-face interviews

- observation of meetings, specifically (but not restricted to) the Protective Services Committee.

As such it is a limited snapshot based on time and information available. It represents the views and

professional judgement of the members of the review team, who will stand by their findings, but is

necessarily restricted due to the time available and scope of the terms of reference.

This review was commissioned by, and is the property of, West Midlands Police Authority. The

intellectual property rights therein similarly reside with West Midlands Police Authority rather

than with Saima Afzal Solutions or any of the individual contributors.

This report is in draft form until accepted by a representative of West Midlands Police

Authority

24

25

Saima Afzal Solutions

TEL: 07801704851 E-MAIL: [email protected]

WEB: www.sasolutions.info www.facebook.com/SaimaAfzalSolutions